2. Oversight and coordination of collection weeding and
consolidation projects:

a) Douglass weeding project

b) Consolidation study of serials
runs covered by JSTOR

c) Consolidation/weeding of NB
science journal print runs

d) Last copy policy

3. INGENTA investigation

4. Review of NB approval plan

5. Review and clarification of gift book acceptance and processing
procedures

6. Access to CRL Holdings

7. Inquiry into Acquisitions Dept. backlogs

8. Management of diversity funds

9. Collection development policy statements

These topics are covered below in more detail.

B.NBCG
Organization and Chair Positions

Participation in NBCG is open to all NB selectors.NBCG is subdivided into four subgroups, based
on subject categories, with chairs as indicated for each of the subgroups:

* Arts and Humanities:Kevin Mulcahy, Chair

* Science: Jackie Mardikian, Chair

* Social Science: Mary Fetzer, Chair

* Reference: Kevin Mulcahy, Chair

H. M. Dess currently serves as chair of NBCG as a whole.

These four chairs, plus Gracemary Smulewitz, Head of NB
Collection Services, also comprise the Budget Allocation Committee of NBCG,
whose primary function is distribution of collection funds among the hundreds
of individual state and non-state fund codes, and subsequent oversight of the
expenditure of these funds during the academic year.

Summary of Activities for the Year:

1.Budget
Oversight

The state funds budget for NB was received from R. G. Sewell
in Sept. 2001 and totaled $3,370.095.This lump sum was then allocated by the NBCG Budget Allocation Committee
among the numerous individual selector accounts. The process was aided this
year by prior distribution of a “provisional budget allocation” by R. G. Sewell
in advance of receipt of the final “official” budget from the university.This enabled the overall allocation work of
NBCG’s Budget Allocation Committee to proceed more expeditiously than in
previous years and entry of these provisional numbers into SIRSI early in the
budget year also permitted the system to function properly.The overall RULS collections budget for this
past year, $7,540,703, represented a modest improvement over the prior year’s
budget, which eliminated the need for a major round of journal cancellations
that had been anticipated earlier.Limited numbers of titles were cancelled on an individual basis by
selectors who wished to apply the funds thus released to the acquisition of new
titles that were determined to be more in demand by the faculty.

The NB non-state funds budget distributed by R. G. Sewell in
October, totaled $1,119,915.The work of
the Budget Allocation Committee in this case is limited to allocating phonothon
funds plus funds from a handful of other gift and endowment accounts to
individual selector fund codes.

About half way through the academic year the full impact of
the state’s growing fiscal crisis made itself felt in the library: a freeze was
imposed on new orders using state funds (for monographs, primarily), however,
those orders already in the acquisitions pipeline were allowed to go through,
and approval plan purchases were also permitted to continue with the use of
state funds.The freeze did not extend
to non-state funds.This freeze of state
funds fell heaviest on the arts and humanities and social science subject
areas, inasmuch as the state funds allocated to the sciences were 100%
allocated to journal subscriptions and already fully committed for that
purpose.Although continuation of
purchases under the NB approval plan helped mitigate the situation, that alone
was insufficient to compensate for loss of prospective purchase selections,
especially for foreign language titles or any orders originating from non-U.S.
publishers.

We end this academic year with great uncertainty and concern
about our budget for the coming year.

2.Weeding and
Collection Consolidation Projects

a) Douglass Project

This massive project continued throughout the first half of
2002 and engaged most of the NB selectors at various times in order to meet the
completion target date of July 1.Kayo
Denda oversaw this operation and assured its successful conclusion.Significant contributions were also made by
Gracemary Smulewitz who expedited the generation of SIRSI print holding lists,
by subject area, for the Douglass collection that were then distributed to
individual selectors and eliminated the need to physically go to Douglass to
scan the shelves.Important lessons were
also learned about how best to coordinate this type of effort across all
campuses to make sure that items not needed at Douglass were made available for
review and possible selection for transfer to other libraries.

b) Consolidation & Weeding of Print Serials Runs
Covered by JSTOR

This study was initiated by Ben Beede and completed by him
early in the year.His work can now be
used as a blueprint for consolidation of fragmentary print journal runs that
are scattered throughout the system, and elimination of overlapping runs will
free up shelf space that is urgently needed to house new materials.Next step for NBCG in collaboration with
Access Services and Collection Services: develop an action plan to physically
carry out the consolidations pointed up by the Beede study.

c) Consolidation & Weeding of Science Print Journal
Runs

Addie Tallau carried out a study that in some respects
paralleled the Beede project, but focused solely on duplicate runs of print
science journals housed in different NB libraries (including the Annex), and
irrespective of whether or not they were accessible in JSTOR.A number of titles were identified that could
be consolidated into a single run in whichever library was considered most
appropriate for that particular title.The remaining duplicate volumes would be eliminated from the collection
thereby freeing up substantial amounts of needed shelf space.This project is ready for implementation,
pending receipt of final report from Addie.

d)Last Copy
Policy

The Douglass weeding project pointed up the necessity to
remind all selectors to follow a uniform “last copy policy” that would be
applicable throughout RULS.R. G. Sewell
issued an updated version which is shown below:

The last copy of a title is generally not withdrawn from the
Rutgers University Libraries collection.Last copies will be housed in the appropriate research collection or in
the library annex. After review by the appropriate selector, most textbooks,
superseded editions of non‑fiction, material in unusable condition and
not worth preserving, and e‑resources with inactive URLs may be withdrawn
from the online catalog and the collection.

3.INGENTA
Investigation

User complaints about INGENTA performance and access
problems prompted a study by NBCG that confirmed the difficulties posed by this
product.The conclusion was reached that
INGENTA in its current form is unreliable, frustrating to use, and we would be well
advised to evaluate alternative sources for document delivery.Numerous examples of problems were passed on
to Judy Gardner who is overseeing the program..

4.Review of NB
Approval Plan

TAS is seeking ways to eliminate bottlenecks in its
operations and one area under study is the NB approval plan.Overall average rejection rate for approval
books is currently 7.4% but some areas run as high as 10%.Our target is a maximum of 5% rejections.NBCG discussed ways to speed up the approval
book review process and decrease the rejection rate.Some key factors presented for consideration
include the following:

* Selectors should review and modify BNA subject profile as
expeditiously as possible. Improvements in profiles will lower the rejection
rate.With rejection rates under 5%, we
can realize cost savings by having BNA ship preprocessed books (i.e., containing
spine labels, barcodes, etc., which would reduce the in-house work load).

* The current practice of having many selectors review books
is inefficient and too time consuming and should be replaced by a team approach
that would employ only (say) three

selectors.

* Reevaluate BNA as the purveyor of our approval plan.Other alternatives mentioned included

OCLC and RLIN.

Other questions raised were:

* Can we identify certain publishers of such high repute
that we would automatically accept all of their monograph?

* Why not send approval titles electronically to each
selector on a weekly basis?

The following specific decisions were reached for the near
term:

a. Selectors must tighten BNA profiles for their subjects
areas, via meetings to be scheduled with the BNA rep, by the end of the summer
semester.

b. Books received that are out of spec with the revised
profiles will be flagged to the attention of Mary Page who will notify BNA for
correction.

c. Acquisitions Dept. will initiate a review of vendors
other than BNA.

d. Beginning July 1, selectors will have a two week deadline
to examine books and make a decision about acceptance or rejection.Any items remaining unexamined on the
approval shelves after that time will be automatically accepted (subject to
future review and modification).

(The suggestion about the team approach was tabled for now,
subject to future reconsideration)

5.Review and
Clarification of Gift Book Acceptance and Processing Procedures

The topic of gift books, and gift collections, has been the
subject of periodic discussions at NBCG throughout the year, reflecting ongoing
concerns about how best to deal with these acquisitions.The “Draft Guidelines for the Acquisition of
Large Gift Collections” prepared by R. G. Sewell in 1998 (see Appendix 1)
comprises the basic set of rules governing how such donations should be
handled, but selectors are also advised to consult with their respective
subgroup chairs for further guidance before accepting prospective large
donations (arbitrarily defined as any gift that totals more than two or three
cartons of books).Key considerations
with large collections involving perhaps hundreds of books are our internal processing
costs and limits on personnel availability to carry out the necessary
work.Selectors were also reminded to
discourage patrons from dropping off large quantities of material without prior
consultation with the relevant selector(s).At the same time selectors must remain sensitive to the need for tact
and diplomacy in dealing with donors.

6.Access to CRL
Holdings

NBCG approved a recommendation by Lourdes Vazquez that CRL
microfilm records be included in IRIS in order to increase awareness of CRL’s
holdings that are available for borrowing by our academic community.Rutgers already pays an annual membership fee
to CRL which covers borrowing rights.

7.Acquisition
Backlogs and the Selection Process

Throughout most of the year NBCG was informed that
Acquisition Dept. order backlogs were running at about two months, although in
a number of specific cases much longer delays were documented (especially for
foreign language materials, or orders involving certain non-US
publishers).Selectors have expressed
concern about the fact that an ongoing ‘average’ backlog of this magnitude
adversely affects the selection process because selectors cannot then
accurately know at any given time how much of the funding on any given subject
code is still unencumbered

(or overencumbered).The selection problems relating to the Acquisitions backlog have been
discussed on numerous occasions at NBCG, and in conference with Mary Page, who
is addressing these matters.An
Acquisitions Dept. open house in June provided a welcome opportunity for NBCG
selectors to share ideas and concerns about various aspects of the acquisitions
process, including the backlog, and to learn more about the functions performed
by various members of the Acquisitions Dept.

8.Diversity Funds

Diversity funds provided by the University totaled $8433
this year vs. $7900 last year.This
special program continued under the guidance of Lourdes Vazquez.The principal focus of this year’s selections,
was middle eastern materials.

9.Collection
Development Subject Reviews

The Social Sciences Subgroup reviewed a draft collection
development policy statement for sociology and also requested that R. G. Sewell
provide online access to existing collection development policy statements
already on file in print format.Reviews
were also carried out on selected electronic databases relevant to the social
sciences and alw, especially Westlaw Campus and Lexis-Nexis.

Appendix
1

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF GIFT
COLLECTIONS

(2/2002 revised
by R.G. Sewell)

Acquiring gift collections is one way to develop collections
that can greatly benefit the Libraries.While initially free, however, gift collections involve significant
costs for processing and maintenance.They must be selected according to the criteria of other collection
development decisions: within the scope of current teaching and research at
Rutgers; long-term cultural value; the quality or nature of the material must
clearly advance these areas of interests; and the material must be accessible
to users in a reasonable amount of time after the acquisition of the gift.

Bringing in large gift collections requires diplomatic
skills with donors and library personnel,planning for staging areas, sorting, cataloging, permanent storage
space, and potential fund-raising for processing.The following guidelines should be observed
in considering gift collections, both large and small.

Initial Selection Decision:

·Selector must assess the gift collection on-site
and determine its importance and relevance to collection and the extent of
duplication.If the collection is
largely duplicative of current holdings or is the Libraries is not capable of
adequately processing the collection, the donation should either be rejected or
only selectively acquired.Alternatives
to donating the collection to the Libraries may be suggested, such as selling
to second hand book dealers or donating to other libraries.In rare circumstances in which the
comprehensiveness of the collection is of a particular research interest to
Rutgers and the holdings include some materials of unique research value,
entire collections may be acquired if this is a requirement of the donor and is
on balance beneficial to Rutgers.

·If the selector decides that a large gift collection
should be acquired selectively or in its entirety, he/she should notify the
AULCDM and the appropriate library director.Cataloging will be involved in determining
the workload impact and developing a plan and timetable.

·Any special stipulations of the donor must be
determined and agreed to by the director and the AUL/CDM and in some cases
the University Librarian.Stipulations
may include maintenance as separate collection, limitations on the circulation
of the materials, or continued development of the collection.The donor should be asked if they can
contribute to the cost of processing or continued expansion of the collection.

·Acknowledgment letters

·If the donor requests a tax write-off, see Tax Considerations
for the Donor below.

Initial Processing:

·Ideally, the donor should supply a list of the contents
of the collection.

·On site, the selector should take notes concerning
condition and special cataloging needs and make a brief inventory or summary of
subject strengths and rare items.

·Ideally initial processing (rough, general arrangement
and supervised boxing of material)should take place on-site.

Pick Up and Delivery of Collections:

Arrangement for picking up collection by the Shipping and
Receiving Department must be made well in advance of pick-up date.See Public Services Memo 8 (Mail
Policy–Deliveries/Pick Ups)
(http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/pub_serv/policies/pspm_08.html#delivery‑pickup).

Later Processing:

·If collection needs to be sorted and arranged before
cataloging, determine location for this processing and who will
sort.

·Determine which material needs preservation
treatment and whether it can be done in-house or needs to be outsourced.

·Plan for cataloging will be finalized and begin.

Determine Fund Raising Possibilities:

·Determine if the donor is able to make an
accompanying gift of cash with the collection to ease the Libraries’
financial burden for processing and/or preservation.If so, work with the AUL/CDM, Library
Director, and the Director of Development to secure such a gift.

·Seek out special funding within the university and
Libraries.

·Explore grants with foundations or individuals
possibilities.

Tax Considerations for the Donor:

·Gifts of property the donor believes to be valued at
more than $500 but less than $5,000 may be eligible for a federal income tax
deduction.You can advise the donor they
can attach the IRS 8283 form to their federal income tax return when claiming
this deduction.As a courtesy, you can
offer to obtain for the donor an 8283 form from the Director of Development.

·If the gift, or if all gifts of similar kinds of
property given by that donor during one year exceeds $500, the donor is
required to obtain a “qualified appraisal” in order to claim a charitable
deduction.We can provide a list of
qualified appraisers, but we do not recommend any particular appraiser, and we
do not pay for appraisals for the purpose of donor tax benefits.(For more information about this and other
exceptions, see the Libraries’ Director of Development.)The donor must complete IRS Form 8283.The University Treasurer’s Office signs this
form.The Director of Development can
negotiate this process for you.

·If the non-cash gift is in excess of $5,000, the IRS
requires the University to report the sale of such gift to the IRS if the
property is disposed of within two years of the date of gift.Such a sale may affect the donor’s options
when claiming the gift as a charitable deduction.Please contact the development office for
more information about disposing of non-cash gifts.